WI Nero doesn't commit suicide.

Wrong, early on he was a boy set upon the throne (by his mother), with the help of the murder of his stepfather. However, he became a maniac later on. He had his mom killed FFS. If he was so popular, Vespasian wouldn't have demolished is fething golden palace to build the Colosseum.
He was a maniac. Perhaps not as much as Commodus or Elgabalus (that's more a reflection on the late Princeps), but a tyrant nonetheless.

Either way, to the point of the OP, as I pointed to before, he was dead either way. You just miss out on a semi-memorable quote attributed to a sociopath with power.

People often forget poor Sporus and the horror heaped upon this poor soul. Nero was a sadist and the attempts to excuse him of his brutality gloss over his actions in the creation of his last wife.
 
Last edited:
Semantics. When you revolt against an emperor, there are only two outcomes: kill or be killed.

What about keeping Nero under close house arrest and only killing him if forced to do so? After all, if you're worried about the eastern provinces and legions getting angry at usurpation, killing him isn't going to help you either.

Neither Vindex nor Galba meant for Nero to live, ending the “tyranny” of Nero basically meant “depose him and declare myself as emperor”, and that’s really the only thing they could do, since if Nero had stayed alive, he would have just ordered their execution later.

No he couldn't we know he lost all support in Rome, the Praetorians wouldn't obey him, so he had no way of even reliably alerting the legions. If Galba managed to get back to the capital quickly enough and make a deal with the Senate, in all appearances it would just seem like Nero had agreed to a political deal.

Exactly because of the dynasty’s prestige another pretender couldn’t let Nero live. If he had, someone would have simply attempted to restore him. That’s why Vindex and Galba claimed Nero was a “tyrant”, so that his murder could somewhat be justified in the interest of the “res publica”.

I am claiming that Galba never wanted to overthrow Nero, but merely to rule through him. If this view is wrong, do you have evidence cause I'm just reading Suetonius here. Another perfectly plausible interpretation is that they wanted to put him under house arrest and rule "through" him (using conspirators back in Rome), hopefully avoiding civil war since they're not too popular to begin with. If they were to go the full murder and overthrow route, they would piss off a lot of people and throw themselves into a civil war they are unlikely to win.
 
His mother wanted him dead just the same. It was either her or him, and Nero figured it might just as well be her. Seneca and Burro were very probably privy to the whole plot, and since at the time they were especially close to Nero, a very easily manipulated person, it’a impossible they had no part in soliciting her murder. After that, Nero became increasingly insecure and paranoid, but a maniac? By your standards 90% of Roman emperors were maniacs. Some emperors even got more people killed than he did (Augustus, Claudius, Severus etc.) and yet Nero is singled out as the one true monster of Roman history alongside his equally infamous uncle.

Tiberius built upon Augustus’ old house too, and he certainly didn’t do so because he was unpopular. Hadrian actually built an even bigger villa than Nero, he got away with it just because it was outside Rome, and no emperor went to live there after his death, that’s certainly not due to unpopularity.

yeah, BS. Seneca and his mother tried to control him, they ultimately failed. Seneca chose exile and was ultimately forced to kill himself. His mother was also murdered by Nero. 90% of emperors? No, only the most insane ones.

You're seriously comparing Tiberius to Nero? Buddy, the Golden Palace of Nero is infamous in history for a reason. Those two emperors you mentioned didn't capitalize on a fire that BURNED MOST OF ROME TO THE GROUND.

This isn't a hill to die on. Nero was the lousy emperor history remembers him as.
 
yeah, BS. Seneca and his mother tried to control him, they ultimately failed. Seneca chose exile and was ultimately forced to kill himself. His mother was also murdered by Nero. 90% of emperors? No, only the most insane ones.

You're seriously comparing Tiberius to Nero? Buddy, the Golden Palace of Nero is infamous in history for a reason. Those two emperors you mentioned didn't capitalize on a fire that BURNED MOST OF ROME TO THE GROUND.

This isn't a hill to die on. Nero was the lousy emperor history remembers him as.

Constantine killed his wife, his son, his father in law and his brothers in law, what makes him better than Nero? Why does he get to be called “the Great”? Ancient times were cruel and merciless times, were people acted cruelly and mercilessly. Nowadays ethical standards can’t be applied to the past.

Seneca and Burro were a faction, Agrippina and Pallas another, it’s not that they failed to control Nero, it’s that Nero switched from one manipulator to the other. First Agrippina, then Seneca, then Tigellinus alongside Poppea. Whenever left alone, he was lost, and all he wanted to do was play and sing.

The golden palace isn’t infamous, buddy, nowadays it’s recognized as a splendid work of art, from what’s left of it anyway. Nero didn’t capitalize on the burning of Rome, that city burned practically every time, it happened under all emperors up to him, and more than once. Nero actually supported the families who lost their houses, although he surely would have been smarter to build his gigantic house outside Rome, like Hadrian did with his Villa at Tivoli, which was actually even bigger than the Domus Aurea. I’m not comparing Tiberius to Nero as emperor or even as a person. Just saying he did exactly the same thing with Augustus’ home as Vespasian did with the Domus Aurea, and not due to unpopularity, that’s a fact.

Was Nero a good emperor? Nope, not at all, but he’s not the monster senatorial propaganda and stupid inaccurate historical romances like Quo Vadis paint him to be.
 
What about keeping Nero under close house arrest and only killing him if forced to do so? After all, if you're worried about the eastern provinces and legions getting angry at usurpation, killing him isn't going to help you either.



No he couldn't we know he lost all support in Rome, the Praetorians wouldn't obey him, so he had no way of even reliably alerting the legions. If Galba managed to get back to the capital quickly enough and make a deal with the Senate, in all appearances it would just seem like Nero had agreed to a political deal.



I am claiming that Galba never wanted to overthrow Nero, but merely to rule through him. If this view is wrong, do you have evidence cause I'm just reading Suetonius here. Another perfectly plausible interpretation is that they wanted to put him under house arrest and rule "through" him (using conspirators back in Rome), hopefully avoiding civil war since they're not too popular to begin with. If they were to go the full murder and overthrow route, they would piss off a lot of people and throw themselves into a civil war they are unlikely to win.

Why couldn’t Nero just break the agreement and try to restore himself? Who says he won’t break free from house arrest? Who says a faction won’t try to put itself in Galba’s place in either case? Who says that Galba couldn’t be executed later by Nero since he was still the official emperor? Aetius attempted to rule through Valentinian III, who conveniently kept himself away from state business, yet when he got tired of Aetius, he simply ordered him to be killed and that was it.

Look, let’s just agree to disagree on the matter. All the proof I can give you is a fact, no usurper kept the usurped alive in Roman history, because it was just easier to kill him, and I doubt Galba ever meant to change procedure, no matter what he said or claimed. At least that’s my personal opinion.
 
Was Nero a good emperor? Nope, not at all, but he’s not the monster senatorial propaganda and stupid inaccurate historical romances like Quo Vadis paint him to be.

True his main problems.

1. He had no self awareness at all for like anything and always embarrassed himself in the most demeaning ways.
2. He was super paranoid and didn't trust anyone and ended up with no supporters but lackeys and favourites.
3. He never took the job seriously as his mind was always on the arts and he is a blockhead at learning.
4. He has personality defects of a narcissist coupled with no self-awareness ticks everybody the wrong way and annoys them by forcing them to demean themselves and pay tribute to his artistry, his acting, his poetry, his singing, his athletic accomplishments, ect
5. He severed his ties with the Julio-Claudians over his relationship with women and was easily controlled by them.
6. He's totally extravagant wasting money on frivolities because "art."

My reason for asking what if he didn't commit suicide is that it would be interesting to explore a scenario where we return to a somewhat Republican setting, with powerful generals vying over control of the "indisposed" emperor under house arrest, yet avoiding outright civil war, and the Julio-Claudians end up being sort of like Han Emperors locked up in the palace, with no one daring to kill the last heirs of Caesar, but using them to control others and run the empire in their name.
 
True his main problems.

1. He had no self awareness at all for like anything and always embarrassed himself in the most demeaning ways.
2. He was super paranoid and didn't trust anyone and ended up with no supporters but lackeys and favourites.
3. He never took the job seriously as his mind was always on the arts and he is a blockhead at learning.
4. He has personality defects of a narcissist coupled with no self-awareness ticks everybody the wrong way and annoys them by forcing them to demean themselves and pay tribute to his artistry, his acting, his poetry, his singing, his athletic accomplishments, ect
5. He severed his ties with the Julio-Claudians over his relationship with women and was easily controlled by them.
6. He's totally extravagant wasting money on frivolities because "art."

My reason for asking what if he didn't commit suicide is that it would be interesting to explore a scenario where we return to a somewhat Republican setting, with powerful generals vying over control of the "indisposed" emperor under house arrest, yet avoiding outright civil war, and the Julio-Claudians end up being sort of like Han Emperors locked up in the palace, with no one daring to kill the last heirs of Caesar, but using them to control others and run the empire in their name.

Yeah I agree with your assessment, he really was out of touch with reality and he reall fed upon people’s appreciation. Guess that’s what happens when you’re dumb and grow up with no father, an unloving mother and the greatest pressure that could ever rest on a kid’s shoulders.

That scenario would be messier than any of the empire’s civil wars prior to 235, it would be something akin to Honorius’ reign pretty much, save all the invasions.
 
Why couldn’t Nero just break the agreement and try to restore himself? Who says he won’t break free from house arrest? Who says a faction won’t try to put itself in Galba’s place in either case? Who says that Galba couldn’t be executed later by Nero since he was still the official emperor? Aetius attempted to rule through Valentinian III, who conveniently kept himself away from state business, yet when he got tired of Aetius, he simply ordered him to be killed and that was it.

Nero can't break the agreement or escape or do anything because he would be kept under house arrest by trusted Praetorians and he has already lost support among them. I'm assuming that Galba already had a conspiracy running with an agreed upon faction before launching his "rebellion." Galba probably planned this for years as he's a strict person and is super offended by Nero's "eccentricities." Valentinian III was never placed under "house arrest", he just was disinclined to care about state affairs until he decided Aetius couldn't be trusted.

Look, let’s just agree to disagree on the matter. All the proof I can give you is a fact, no usurper kept the usurped alive in Roman history, because it was just easier to kill him, and I doubt Galba ever meant to change procedure, no matter what he said or claimed. At least that’s my personal opinion.

Okay, my only point is that whatever the risks of keeping him alive, killing him would be deeply unpopular and Galba is already unloved. The history of imperial usurpations is still very new at this point with only one example, Caligula. So it wasn't yet a tradition that emperors had to die, especially if this one is the last Julio-Claudian and is so politically hopeless and idiotic that he would pose little threat.
 
That scenario would be messier than any of the empire’s civil wars prior to 235, it would be something akin to Honorius’ reign pretty much, save all the invasions.

Why is that? It would be the same as a new emperor taking over, with the exception that he pretends he's not the emperor and gains legitimacy from having a Julio-Claudian in captivity. He will hold auctoritas and share power with the Senate to maintain a faction in power. To the rest of the empire, it appears that Nero is still on the throne but is ruling sanely, no longer up to antics, or wasting money on extravagances. Nobody loses anything from this arrangement and there's no faction that can challenge this arrangement without putting Nero's life at serious risk.
 
Nero can't break the agreement or escape or do anything because he would be kept under house arrest by trusted Praetorians and he has already lost support among them. I'm assuming that Galba already had a conspiracy running with an agreed upon faction before launching his "rebellion." Galba probably planned this for years as he's a strict person and is super offended by Nero's "eccentricities." Valentinian III was never placed under "house arrest", he just was disinclined to care about state affairs until he decided Aetius couldn't be trusted.



Okay, my only point is that whatever the risks of keeping him alive, killing him would be deeply unpopular and Galba is already unloved. The history of imperial usurpations is still very new at this point with only one example, Caligula. So it wasn't yet a tradition that emperors had to die, especially if this one is the last Julio-Claudian and is so politically hopeless and idiotic that he would pose little threat.

What I’m saying, there’s no guarantee Nero won’t break out somehow and reassert himself. There are always factions ready to release political prisoners in all times of history, and sometimes they succeeded.

Valentinian III was pretty much in house arrest save for the guardians, members of his court, and by extensions Aetius’ court, conspired against the latter and convinced him to have him killed. The same could happen with Nero, regencies are especially fluid political organs.

I doubt Galba really planned anything at all. He didn’t even start the revolt and he had a decent career overral. He simply saw a chance and went along with it, he probably expected more support for Vindex’s cause though, or I don’t think he would have taken the risk. He really lucked out on that, odds were overwhelmingly against him after Vindex’s death.
 
Why is that? It would be the same as a new emperor taking over, with the exception that he pretends he's not the emperor and gains legitimacy from having a Julio-Claudian in captivity. He will hold auctoritas and share power with the Senate to maintain a faction in power. To the rest of the empire, it appears that Nero is still on the throne but is ruling sanely, no longer up to antics, or wasting money on extravagances. Nobody loses anything from this arrangement and there's no faction that can challenge this arrangement without putting Nero's life at serious risk.

Except since the official emperor is still alive, people will try to usurp the regency until Nero dies, and for as much as people, quite unreasonably, would want to keep him alive, one of the usurpers will just get tired and kill him. Until then, it’ll be a constant civil war to either dominate Nero or release him.

At the end of the day, who cares if people disapprove of killing Nero? As long as an emperor has the army and the Senate’s support in the first century, everybody will eventually move on.
 
What I’m saying, there’s no guarantee Nero won’t break out somehow and reassert himself. There are always factions ready to release political prisoners in all times of history, and sometimes they succeeded.

Valentinian III was pretty much in house arrest save for the guardians, members of his court, and by extensions Aetius’ court, conspired against the latter and convinced him to have him killed. The same could happen with Nero, regencies are especially fluid political organs.

Because Aetius was away campaigning I believe? So long as Galba and important members stay in the capital and appoint trusted legionary commanders it shouldn't be an issue.

I doubt Galba really planned anything at all. He didn’t even start the revolt and he had a decent career overral. He simply saw a chance and went along with it, he probably expected more support for Vindex’s cause though, or I don’t think he would have taken the risk. He really lucked out on that, odds were overwhelmingly against him after Vindex’s death.

Wow, he must be incredibly idiotic then, he had what one-two legions in his command? I thought it only logical if he thought his base of support in Rome was secure for him to act and try for a coup.
 
Because Aetius was away campaigning I believe? So long as Galba and important members stay in the capital and appoint trusted legionary commanders it shouldn't be an issue.

Otho managed just fine to overthrow Galba when he was in the capital. He could very well overthrow his regency in this ATL, and then Vitellius would overthrow it, and then someone in Rome would release Nero and so on so on. It’s as messy as it gets.



Wow, he must be incredibly idiotic then, he had what one-two legions in his command? I thought it only logical if he thought his base of support in Rome was secure for him to act and try for a coup.

At that point, it was either try and die or just die. In all fairness though, perhaps Vindex thought he had widespread support and led Galba to believe it. We’ll never know.
 
Except since the official emperor is still alive, people will try to usurp the regency until Nero dies, and for as much as people, quite unreasonably, would want to keep him alive, one of the usurpers will just get tired and kill him. Until then, it’ll be a constant civil war to either dominate Nero or release him.

I guess deception is key. Communications being so poor, it wouldn't be hard to believe almost everyone believing that Galba and Nero had "come to terms." By the time everyone learned what was going on, all the legionary commanders could have been replaced and a ruling clique could begin to gain legitimacy, supposing they rule much more sensibly than Nero. Then the reason for challenging this clique becomes a pure do you think you can win scenario. If the answer is no, political stability could last until Nero's death by old age.

At the end of the day, who cares if people disapprove of killing Nero? As long as an emperor has the army and the Senate’s support in the first century, everybody will eventually move on.

The Flavians had HUGE issues trying to consolidate legitimacy, it was no simple matter at all. Also, I'm looking at a scenario where Julio-Claudians become "constitutional rulers" with no real power for many years, with the Senate sharing power and agreeing to work to prevent disunity and conflict. Hopefully the legitimacy of the Julio-Claudians would prevent usurpers in the future, who would be acting not just against any emperor chosen by soldiers but the direct heir to CAESAR as well as the SENATE. So that's the whole point of this.
 
I guess deception is key. Communications being so poor, it wouldn't be hard to believe almost everyone believing that Galba and Nero had "come to terms." By the time everyone learned what was going on, all the legionary commanders could have been replaced and a ruling clique could begin to gain legitimacy, supposing they rule much more sensibly than Nero. Then the reason for challenging this clique becomes a pure do you think you can win scenario. If the answer is no, political stability could last until Nero's death by old age.



The Flavians had HUGE issues trying to consolidate legitimacy, it was no simple matter at all. Also, I'm looking at a scenario where Julio-Claudians become "constitutional rulers" with no real power for many years, with the Senate sharing power and agreeing to work to prevent disunity and conflict. Hopefully the legitimacy of the Julio-Claudians would prevent usurpers in the future, who would be acting not just against any emperor chosen by soldiers but the direct heir to CAESAR as well as the SENATE. So that's the whole point of this.

I get your scenario, but I just don’t think that constitutional rule can be applied in antiquity. It’s all my opinion, it could be wrong, but thing is, ancient people didn’t share our distaste for war and murder, and in their mentality it’s easier to just go and murder your way to power than try to agree with people and limit your own power. It’s also easier to disagree with people rather than agree with them, and that’s pretty much universal.
 
Constantine killed his wife, his son, his father in law and his brothers in law, what makes him better than Nero? Why does he get to be called “the Great”? Ancient times were cruel and merciless times, were people acted cruelly and mercilessly. Nowadays ethical standards can’t be applied to the past.

Seneca and Burro were a faction, Agrippina and Pallas another, it’s not that they failed to control Nero, it’s that Nero switched from one manipulator to the other. First Agrippina, then Seneca, then Tigellinus alongside Poppea. Whenever left alone, he was lost, and all he wanted to do was play and sing.

The golden palace isn’t infamous, buddy, nowadays it’s recognized as a splendid work of art, from what’s left of it anyway. Nero didn’t capitalize on the burning of Rome, that city burned practically every time, it happened under all emperors up to him, and more than once. Nero actually supported the families who lost their houses, although he surely would have been smarter to build his gigantic house outside Rome, like Hadrian did with his Villa at Tivoli, which was actually even bigger than the Domus Aurea. I’m not comparing Tiberius to Nero as emperor or even as a person. Just saying he did exactly the same thing with Augustus’ home as Vespasian did with the Domus Aurea, and not due to unpopularity, that’s a fact.

Was Nero a good emperor? Nope, not at all, but he’s not the monster senatorial propaganda and stupid inaccurate historical romances like Quo Vadis paint him to be.

Did I defend Constantine? I think did more harm than good to the empire and was tyrannical. Not infamous? Vespasian built the Flavian amphitheater on the remains of the totally not infamous Golden House. Of course extravagant buildings can be works of art. Just look at the palace of Versailles or Caeusescu's palace in Romania (to a much lesser degree). The pyramids are dedicated to dead, dictatorial pharaohs ffs.

Senatorial propaganda? Oh, you're one of those guys who thinks history is only written by the victors and discredits the works of Senatorial historians like Suetonius? This type of thinking is why David Irving still has a following.

Nero deserves the reputation he has now.
 
Did I defend Constantine? I think did more harm than good to the empire and was tyrannical. Not infamous? Vespasian built the Flavian amphitheater on the remains of the totally not infamous Golden House. Of course extravagant buildings can be works of art. Just look at the palace of Versailles or Caeusescu's palace in Romania (to a much lesser degree). The pyramids are dedicated to dead, dictatorial pharaohs ffs.

Senatorial propaganda? Oh, you're one of those guys who thinks history is only written by the victors and discredits the works of Senatorial historians like Suetonius? This type of thinking is why David Irving still has a following.

Nero deserves the reputation he has now.

Everybody’s entitled to their own opinion pal, but comparing Nero to Hitler is way over the top.
 
Top